On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:21:36PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:10:51AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,
> > Kenshi Muto wrote:
> > > > I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
> > > > may have been different.
> > > >
> > > > What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
> > > > reason to remove package.
> > > >
> > > > How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
> > > > different issue.
> > >
> > > I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
> > > important.
> You are with me.
> > > This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
> > > Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
> > >
> > > Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
> > > from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
> > > Woody uses Watanabe.
> > > There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
> > > dirty source ourself.
> I think Steve or me will not fuss like this if this migration is just an
> migration of testing/unstable packages. Maintainer can do anything to
> provide best possible packages in all respect including aesthetics.
Indeed, I have no objections to removing the fonts from unstable for
whatever reason. I only call into question the rationale for requesting
the fonts' removal from stable.
And it's not for me to decide whether the font packages should be
changed in stable for reasons other than license violations, but I do
think the Stable Release Manager should have the chance to evaluate the
facts of this proposed update.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer